"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote:

This is quite entertaining. Here we have a card-carrying
member of the NCTA, a group which has spent the last
dozen years or so blaming us ever so politically incorrect
PCTA's of keeping the ARS securely locked up in the
"past," and now you're trying to make the "past" code use
of non-amateur radio services somehow relevant to the
present-day issue of continued code testing. Having
memory problems?


First, other than ARRL, I'm not a card carrying member of any Amateur
Radio group. Second, the opinions expressed by others don't apply to me and
I certainly don't represent the views of others. So please stop trying to
throw me into a group you dislike in an effort to dismiss what I have to
say.


One of the leading arguments *against* code testing
throughout this debate has always been that the use of
(Morse) code has been deemed to be irrelevant in non-
amateur radio services.


Which debate is that, Larry? The debates with me or the debates you've had
with others. I've never said anything of the sorts in the debates you and I
have had. My position has been consistent throughout those debates.


I have given the "relevant facts" ad nauseum. (snip)


Nonsense.


I haven't twisted a damn thing, Dwight, and you know it.


You haven't stop twisting things, Larry - right up to the message where
you posted the sentence above.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

"Kim W5TIT" wrote

One: no one should be kept out of the ARS--let
them get their license and stand or fail on their merit.

You can't really mean that! I do not support continuation of
the Morse test, but to suggest that we should just hand out
licenses to anyone regardless of demonstrated qualification
and let them "stand or fail on their merit" is the silliest
notion I have seen here yet.
That's like saying "let anyone get their drivers license
and stand or fail on their driving record" without having
passed a test.

73, de Hans, K0HB


Yeah. What you suggest would be like saying that. But that was not
suggested and your attempt to stretch it to that is rather unlike you...

But that's exactly what was suggested. Your words, written in a clear
English declarative statement are unambiguous and say "NO ONE should
be kept out of the ARS" --- that's pretty much the same as saying
"NO ONE should be denied a drivers license".

Personally, I think persons who fail the test (or haven't taken a test)
SHOULD be kept out of the ARS.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get rid of this mindspring.com wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Arnie Macy" wrote:

Oh Really? I brought up a very factual survey along
with two other facts concerning CW and you refused
to respond (other than to say you wouldn't respond)
I asked you in another thread to explain a little bit about
some of the new technology that you say you know so
well (and we CW'ers don't). I'm *still* waiting for an
answer on that one. (snip)


Let's turn that around at little, Arnie. I haven't seen Clint going
around
claiming to be superior. Instead, it is those in your circle claiming
to
be
the superior hams. Other than code, what skills or knowledge of
technology
can be found in the pro-code crowd that cannot be found among the
no-code
crowd? From what I've seen, there are just as many highly skilled
individuals in the no-code crowd as there are in the pro-code crowd,
working
in just as many professional careers. So, if there is no real
difference
between the two, why do those like yourself continue to support, or at
least
nor object to, the superior ham position of some in this newsgroup and
elsewhere? The only possible answer I can see is that you also
consider
those like yourself to be superior hams.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



Perhaps you think those that know/use Morse are superior to you. I
don't
ever recall seeing anyone that advocates Morse saying they felt
superior.


I believe that making references and using analogies that you guys are the
adults and new, entry level hams are children pretty much describes
a superior if not condescending attitude.

Clint
KB5ZHT

--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--



Now why did I know you had to make a comment Clint?

Here is one right back to you ...ten four?

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Have a nice day.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dee D. Flint" wrote in message
.com...

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Clint" wrote ...

I believe that making references and using analogies that you guys are
the
adults and new, entry level hams are children pretty much describes a
superior if not condescending attitude.
__________________________________________________ ______________

That's a pretty big brush you've got there, Clint. Please reference
*any*
post I've made where I said, or implied that I consider no-code hams as
children. I'll wait here.

Arnie -
KT4ST


I suspect that Clint was actually referring indirectly to some of my posts
as I have used the parent/child analogy and student/teacher analogy.
However he likes to take this as meaning a superior and/or condescending
attitude. He fails to be willing to admit that the less experienced
should
take the advice of the more experienced while they develop sufficient
background to make informed choices. He has obviously missed my posts
where
I have clearly said that if I were interested in satellite work, I would
go
consult the most experienced satellite operator in our local club, who
happens in this case to be a Technician. I am more than willing to
respect
his expertise. I would willingly, in this area, be the "child" or
"student"
in learning this activity. If I doubted what he told me about satellite
work, I would first wait until I had equal experience before challenging
his
experience.

However, Clint wants to challenge the issue from a point of inexperience
and
feels that he should be taken seriously.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Dang Dee D......you are really cutting his crap down to size. You must
have had some courses.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clint" rattlehead at computron dot net wrote:

I believe that making references and using analogies
that you guys are the adults and new, entry level
hams are children pretty much describes a superior
if not condescending attitude.


I'm not talking about references or analogies, Clint. I'm talking about
Larry's specific use of the word "superior" to describe those with code
skills and the word "inferior" to describe those without such skills.
Since
none of the pro-code crowd objected to his position, I now trying to see
how
many others share the same opinions.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



He is intitled to his opinion. Just as you are, even if they are
crackpot....in my opinion...see how it works?

Dan/W4NTI

"Arnie Macy" wrote in message
...
"Dan/W4NTI" wrote ...

Perhaps you think those that know/use Morse are superior to you. I don't
ever recall seeing anyone that advocates Morse saying they felt superior.
I
know I don't feel that way. However I do feel those that don't play on CW
are missing a major part of the enjoyment they could get from having a
amateur license. But thats their loss not mine. If you thank that is
imparting a superior attitude, I say Dwight that you have the problem,
not
us.
__________________________________________________ ___________________

I feel exactly the same way, Dan. I promote CW, and will continue to do
so,
but have never said or even implied that it made me a superior Ham. I
*do*
think it makes one a more well-rounded ham. But that is not the same
thing.

Arnie -
KT4ST


Exactly, more rounded, more experienced, more able to provide
communications under adverse conditions...etc.

But not suprerior. In fact when I get my Extra back in the 70s. I could
have opted for a 1X2 callsign at various points since then. I have not,
why is that? Im not one to put on airs, nor do I feel superior to others.

However, based on my experience and background, I feel I am qualified to
advise and suggest. The problem is folks now a days seem to think they know
it all, just because they passed a entry level exam. Oh well.

I believe all of us are more than willing to help the newcomers out. But I
refuse to be insulted and because I enjoy a mode they find 'useless'.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Dan/W4NTI" w4nti@get wrote:

Perhaps you think those that know/use Morse are superior
to you. I don't ever recall seeing anyone that advocates
Morse saying they felt superior.

I know I don't feel that way. However I do feel those that
don't play on CW are missing a major part of the enjoyment
they could get from having a amateur license. But thats their
loss not mine.

If you thank that is imparting a superior attitude, I say Dwight
that you have the problem, not us.


Larry posted this claim of superiority well more than twenty times in
this
newsgroup alone. He specifically and repeatedly claimed that those with
code
skills are "superior" to those without. He even used the word "inferior"
to
describe those without code skills. Throughout it all, none of the
pro-code
crowd raised a single objection to his position and several openly agreed
with it.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/



I didn't see that post. And I don't agree with it, if that is what was
said.

I don't read all the posts about code/no code. Its just the same over and
over.

Dan/W4NTI

"Dan/W4NTI" wrote:
Exactly, more rounded, more experienced, more
able to provide communications under adverse
conditions...etc.


Code makes a person more experienced? If that is true, then a person who
passed a code test yesterday is more experienced than a person who got his
license ten years ago without knowing code, and more experienced than all
those in the other radio services where code is not used. More rounded in
what? Emergency communications? Moonbounce? Satellites? And if a person with
code was truly more able to provide communications under adverse conditions,
all radio services would still be relying on code. They aren't. In the end,
these are all code myths.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

A learning experience that can be accomplished without a license exam
(Boy
Scouts routinely did it), therefore not an argument supporting a code
testing requirement.

That's where I first learned about the morse code. I had to learn it to get
a badge; upon learning it, I recieved a badge of achievement for haveing
done so. Had I not dont it, I STILL would have been allowed to be a boy
scout, they wouldn't have thrown me out NOR was learning the code
a requirement for joining in the first place. I just wouldn't have gotten
that particular acheivement badge had I not went through the morse
code studies.

I certainly think that by now newbies reading the various posts
on either side of the issue have at least some good starting points from
which to start making thier own conclusion. I wonder if, in retrospect,
the PCTA is proud of the way they've behaved and wonder if they
should not have taken a different tactic?

Clint

--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--

"Bert Craig" wrote in message
t...


Then I'll answer it, Dwight. Because preparing for and passing Element 1
requires one to demonstrate a tad more effort and dedication than passing
written exams for which the Q & A pools are published. The 5-wpm is
sufficient enough of a challenge to require some serious studying effort
over approx two or three weeks, but not enough to discourage any
individual
serious about earning HF privileges. For those who are not, the no-code
Technician licens is available. It's really quite simple.


that's true until the rules are changed and CW testing is taken out.

Clint

--

--

Get in touch with your soul: www.glennbeck.com
OR, if you're a liberal, maybe you can FIND one


--